Re: [log4perl-devel] RFC: Log4perl Custom Filters Design Proposal

[Kevin G. <ke...@go...>]

Mike Schilli wrote:
> Pet...@Dr... wrote:
> 
> >     I prefer to define constants for the return values (and put
> >
> Nice. Definitely the correct way of defining it and being flexible to
> add stuff in the future. On the other hand, I really like constructs like
> 
>     sub { /x/ and /y/ }

I agree with Mike on this one.  I think booleans are a feature of the
language, where constants are something added on by the programmer, you
don't really gain that much by redefining booleans and it would clutter
the syntax.

> 
> >    3. What a about message redirection? Are there plans for the
> >    future that a filter (or whatever) can forward a message to
> >    another appender?
> >
> Interesting feature, I haven't thought of that yet (neither have the
> log4j folks). I gotta think about that. Can you imagine a use case?
> Also, we could implement that either as a Log4perl-centric feature based
> on filter return code (as you suggested) or as a function/method call
> inside the filter (redir_to_appender(blah)).

Interesting indeed, but I forsee that as being really hairy.  Do we want
to write our own JMX api?  You have to deal with things like circular
routes, appenders not being defined/avaliable. Ugh.

--
Happy Trails. . .

Kevin M. Goess
(and Anne and Frank)
904 Carmel Ave.
Albany, CA  94706
(510)525-5217